Jitendra Kotai Jake Gyllenhaal looks the part and acts really well.. Vera Farmiga looks gorgeous and Michelle Monaghan looks extremely beautiful. The concept of the movie is very original and the execution of the original idea is perfect here.. Jeffery Wright is another class actor. I was blown away by the film's premise and although a bit far fetched but it was extremely entertaining

blumdeluxe "Source Code" tells the story of a soldier, who awakens in a strange structure and is sent into parallel realities by a misterious army unit he hasn't heard before. They tell him, that his task is to prevent a terrorist attack on Chicago, in which millions of innocent people could be at risk. As time goes by, he notices, that he doesn't get all the information and that this program could implie a lot more than he originally thought.The film is overall very well done. It managaes to show the same scenery time and again without getting boring or become repetitive. There's an element of mystery and an element of action that I like really much. The weak part of the movie however is the sci-fi background of the plot. Where other films present believable conditions, this one really only has a wider thought of what technology could be used to achieve what the film depicts. That way the believability of the movie gets bent pretty much and in the end it feels a bit like some of the usual phrases of love and positivity have been pressed into a Sci-Fi plot. All in all this is a great realization nonetheless. It is based on some interesting thoughts, presents a thrilling plot and a lot of mysteries and is by far on the better end of technology romances.

kalkaanslag-62205 Source Code is one of my favorite movies of all time! It's sublimely acted and directed, and many of the plothole-y problems others have had with it, do seem quite far fetched, but still plausible to me. (Spoilers beneath)One question many people have is where the mind of the history teacher goes when his body is taken over. My initial thought was that it just gets erased, or replaced, like a CD that you could burn. This only adds to an intriguing perspective; whether this is ethically right.Another interesting ethical question this movie rises, is whether lives in a parallel universe matter. Our protagonist cares a lot about the passengers on the train, but does their alternate existence matter at all in a universe where they've already died?What I loved was that there is - apart from the bomber, of course - no real bad guy in the end of the movie. In the part where Colleen wants to accept the wishes of Colter and let him die, the actions of the Doctor are equally good, just from a different standpoint. Colleen wants relieve Colter of his tormenting state of artificial consciousness, which ends up giving him a second life which he loves, instead of the mental imprisonment he would have to endure. However, the Doctor's need to keep him alive is of greater humanitarian benefit, as Colter could help to prevent future catastrophes.The ending is absolutely perfect in my opinion. Colter sending the email to Colleen gives her just enough clues to the outcome of the Source Code experiment, and the Doctor's comment about the experiment not having been done in this universe really reminds you how different, yet similar this universe is to the original. It also provides the most intriguing question of the film: Has this been done before? Have the instructions that Colter gives to Colleen been given in the first universe as well? Thus, is the first universe already a artificially created one by Source Code? In conclusion: Source Code is a non-stop thrill ride that keeps you guessing throughout the movie, and provides answers as our protagonist is figuring it out as well. It's intelligent, beautifully shot and created, thought provoking and just a ton of fun. 10/10, must see!

JLRVancouver The premise of "Source Code" is that Gyllenhaal's Colter Stevens character can replace the last eight minutes of consciousness of a person who is about to die. The person in question is killed in a terrorist bombing of a train, and Stevens is tasked with repeating the eight minutes continuously until he identifies the bomber. The clock is ticking, as there is a second bomb to be found and Stephens' subjective eight minutes is eight minutes in real-time. Similar to "Edge of Tomorrow" and "Groundhog Day", this is a time-loop scenario where the traveller gets to learn from his mistakes and enters each new iteration with a fresh perspective. Despite an early implication that Stevens' only has eight minutes regardless of what happens (in one case he is hit by another train as the 8 minutes end), later it seems that he can go on beyond eight minutes, as each iteration creates a new, alternate reality, and he finally creates one where the bomb is defused and the terrorist captured. Unlike most time travel scenarios, creating alternate universes at decision points doesn't necessarily create paradoxes, but there are some issues conveniently ignored by the writer (and characters): what happened to the consciousness of the person whose body Stevens took over (especially in the 'new' reality where Stevens appears about to live out his life in the requisitioned body) and since the 'donor' didn't die in this 'new' reality, how/why would the source code work (I guess that this is similar to a time travel paradox - you can't save the person as they have to die to enable you to save them)). There is a freeze-frame scene at the end of the last 'eight minute' that teases you into thinking that that is how the movie ends (Stevens frozen in a time loop where he, and everyone around him, are happy) – then the movie continues into the 'new reality'. IMO, closing on the freeze frame would have been a much better ending.